- 10 -
Petitioner argues, however, that we should apply the rule in
Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930), to allow the
deduction. The Cohan rule is invoked in situations where
“Absolute certainty * * * is usually impossible and is not
necessary” and where a close approximation can be made “bearing
heavily * * * upon the taxpayer whose inexactitude is of his own
making.” Id. at 543-544.
We find the application of the Cohan rule to be
inappropriate in this case. Section 170(f) was added by the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-66, sec.
13172, 107 Stat. 312. The House of Representatives proposed to
enact section 170(f) due to
Difficult problems of tax administration [that] arise
with respect to fundraising techniques in which an
organization that is eligible to receive tax deductible
contributions provides goods or services in consideration
for payments from donors. * * * the committee believes that
there will be increased compliance with present-law rules
governing charitable contribution deductions if a taxpayer
who claims a separate charitable contribution of $750[2] or
more is required to obtain substantiation from the donee
indicating the amount of the contribution and whether any
goods, service, or privilege was received by the donor in
exchange for making the contribution. * * * [H. Rept. 103-
111, 1993-3 C.B. 167, 361.]
To allow petitioner the charitable contribution deduction in
the circumstances here would contravene the specific statutory
2 The Senate amendment proposed to change the threshold
amount to $250. H. Conf. Rept. 103-213 (1993), 1993-3 C.B. 393,
443. The Senate version was later adopted in conference. H.
Conf. Rept. 103-213, at 445, supra, 1993-3 C.B. at 361.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011